And you based that on what? Hitchens accounts, and the accounts by a handful of researchers?

More about that:

She read the report by the Canadian academics in its original French, and reacted with sadness, offering this first-hand testimonial in response:

"When I read the criticisms of how the patients were cared for in the Home for the Dying, I kept thinking back to my personal experiences there . . . . I know how tenderly and carefully we tended to each of the destitute patients there”how we bathed them, and washed their beds, and fed them and gave them medicine. I know how the entire shelter was thoroughly and regularly cleaned from top to bottom, and each patient was bathed as often as necessary, even if it was multiple times a day . . .

They were considered “untouchables” of society, and yet there we were touching and caring for them as if they were royalty. We truly felt honored to serve them as best we could. Mother Teresa had taught us to care for each one with all the humility, respect, tenderness and love with which we would touch and serve Jesus Christ Himself”reminding us that “whatsoever we do to the least of our brothers,” we do unto Him."

"After hearing from these supporters, I requested interviews with the researchers, and finally obtained one with Dr. Chenard. Her answers to my series of questions were both astonishing and revealing: She confirmed for me that her academic team did not speak to a single patient, medical analyst, associate, or worker of Mother Teresa’s before writing their paper against her; nor did they examine how all her finances were spent; nor did they speak with anyone at the Vatican involved with her sainthood cause, or consult the Vatican’s medical board which certified the miracle attributed to Blessed Teresa.The researchers had not even traveled to Calcutta, whereas even Hitchens, misguided as he was, at least did that.

As it turned out, this “research paper” was nothing but a “review of literature,” a repacking of what others had already written, with the academics putting their own negative spin on it. In other words, an indictment based upon no original research, and the author most frequently cited? Christopher Hitchens. Yet these “findings” made international headlines, and were repeated by many without objection."

Those like Hitchens who wrote negatively about her weren't driven by facts, but more so by their own polemical contempt for her. They weren't concerned about portraying a truthful account of her, but to feed contempt.

Oh, Really?!!!

In the early 1990's Charles Keating was the Bernie Madoff of his day. He stole money from $252,000,000 from people who trusted their life savings to him. He donated $1.25 million dollars of that stolen money to Mother Teresa but when he was finally caught and tried in a courtroom the prosecutor tried to get M T to give it back. Here's the letter she wrote to the judge.

The Prosecutor sent a letter to Mother Teresa pleading for the stolen money to be returned to it's rightful owners. Here's his letter.

Dear Mother Teresa:
I am a Deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles County and one of the persons who worked on the prosecution of your benefactor, Charles H. Keating, Jr. I read your letter to Judge Ito, written on behalf of Mr. Keating, which includes your admission that you know nothing about Mr. Keating’s business or the criminal charges presented to Judge Ito. I am writing to you to provide a brief explanation of the crimes of which Mr. Keating has been convicted, to give you an understanding of the source of the money that Mr. Keating gave to you, and to suggest that you perform the moral and ethical act of returning the money to its rightful owners.

The biblical slogan of your organization is ‘As long as you did it to one of these My least brethren. You did it to Me’. The ‘least’ of the brethren are among those whom Mr. Keating fleeced without flinching. As you well know, divine forgiveness is available to all, but forgiveness must be preceded by admission of sin. Not only has Mr. Keating failed to admit his sins and his crimes, he persists in selfrighteously blaming others for his own misdeeds. Your experience is, admirably, with the poor. My experience has been with the ‘con’ man and the perpetrator of the fraud. It is not uncommon for ‘con’ men to be generous with family, friends and charities. Perhaps they believe that their generosity will purchase love, respect or forgiveness. However, the time when the purchase of ‘indulgences’ was an acceptable method of seeking forgiveness died with the Reformation. No church, no charity, no organisation should allow itself to be used as salve for the conscience of the criminal.

I remind myself of the biblical admonition of the Prophet Micah: ‘0 man, what is good and what does the Lord require of you. To do justice, love mercy and walk humbly.’ We are urged to love mercy but we must do justice. You urge Judge Ito to look into his heart – as he sentences Charles Keating – and do what Jesus would do. I submit the same challenge to you.
Ask yourself what Jesus would do if he were given the fruits of a crime; what Jesus would do if he were in possession of money that had been stolen; what Jesus would do if he were being exploited by a thief to ease his conscience? I submit that Jesus would promptly and unhesitatingly return the stolen property to its rightful owners. You should do the same. You have been given money by Mr. Keating that he has been convicted of stealing by fraud. Do not permit him the ‘indulgence’ he desires. Do not keep the money. Return it to those who worked for it and earned it!

If you contact me I will put you in direct contact with the rightful owners of the property now in your possession.

Paul W. Turley

The money was never returned and several of the elderly who's money was stolen from them by Charles Keating died because they had no money to pay for the medical expenses. If she was a simple, everyday, decent person she would have returned the money but she didn't. She didn't do what most ordinary people would have done.

This women was a scourge on humanity. There are many other organizations, religious and otherwise, that actually try to save the lives of people in India and around the world. Doctors Without Borders goes into places that no one else enters and cares for the sick and gives pain medication to those suffering. Mother Teresa didn't. She simply let people suffer. Too bad there isn't a hell because this woman would easily qualify for entrance.

(15-03-2016 09:13 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote: If morality is objective it applies to god as well as man.

Shall we discuss the atrocities attributed to god in the bible?

Shall we discuss the AIDS Holocaust caused by catholic policies in Africa?

How about the pedophilia scandals?

Please.

Lets talk about morality.

You can't, you're entirely handicapped by your own moral beliefs from having that discussion, because at the end of the day whatever arguments you have as to what's moral or not amounts to nothing more than arguing that blue is a prettier color than red. You clearly won't be appealing to some objective standard, imagined or otherwise.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

(15-03-2016 09:13 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote: If morality is objective it applies to god as well as man.

Shall we discuss the atrocities attributed to god in the bible?

Shall we discuss the AIDS Holocaust caused by catholic policies in Africa?

How about the pedophilia scandals?

Please.

Lets talk about morality.

You can't, you're entirely handicapped by your own moral beliefs from having that discussion, because at the end of the day whatever arguments you have as to what's moral or not amounts to nothing more than arguing that blue is a prettier color than red. You clearly won't be appealing to some objective standard, imagined or otherwise.

It still would be arguing to an "imagined" objective standard... you can say it's nonexistent and you're hampered by your subjectivity. Yes... but it's still imagined objectivity to sit and imagine if there was objective morality what it would be. So it entirely is imagined despite that not be accurate or reflective of anything real. Again, things not problematic for something imaginary.

Like every post in this thread is just you at some point in it, negating everything else said in the rest of the post. The rest of it pretty solidly holds up.. but to say that at the end of it made no sense. Just like the other points you demonstrate an idea in a circle to a point your own statements lose validity based on your statements. Just as the saying people don't like her because agenda and bias without good reason is just taken back to the reason for this post which is equally a mental process on the other foot of praising and sainting her because agenda and bias without accounting for good reason.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson

(15-03-2016 08:25 AM)Silly Deity Wrote: So you're saying that she had no responsibility for what was being done with all that money? She had no responsibilities for the running of the religious order of which she was founder and its "Superior General"? That's quite an abdication.

And you're telling me what, that you believe she was actively involved in how the catholic church allocated millions of dollars a year in donations? She's an employee of the catholic church, who made her into mascot, the face of their charitable wing. If you think the catholic church has an uneducated women who joined the order when she was 18, manage millions of dollars year in donations, you're kidding yourself.

So, in other words you're agreeing that she abdicated her responsibilities as head of a religious order and therefore failed to ensure that the monies that were collected and donated to her order were put to good use.

(15-03-2016 09:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:

(15-03-2016 08:25 AM)Silly Deity Wrote: And here we see the twisted morality of religion. Rather than tending to the poor and needy because that's the right thing to do, you're saying that it is of secondary importance to preaching to them. For my part I'm quite content to think such behaviour is despicable.

Yes, for most Christians, including myself, tending to the needs of poor is important obligations, but it's only secondary to spreading the Gospel. Nor are these aims mutually exclusive. A person concerned for my soul is likely to be concerned for my physical well being as well. It's to say a man does not live on bread alone.

I know plenty of individuals who devoted their lives to the evangelical mission, using a considerable amount of their own personal wealth, to build orphanages and churches, who go on crusades, feed the poor, for no personal gain, but fidelity to a cause they believe in wholeheartedly.

As far an atheists such yourself finding that morally despicable, that's an entirely worthless accusation from body of folks who believe morality is subjective anyways. Perhaps that makes you feel better about your own moral sanctity, to imagine yourself as morally superior to someone like Mother Theresa, but you're just kidding yourself.

Well there you merely reinforce my point about the twisted morality of religion. My morality tells me that the needs of the poor and their suffering are certainly to be given greater priority than sanctimonious eulogies to any one of the more than 5000 mythical deities that appear to be worshipped by humans on this planet.

And why is my morality any more subjective than yours? Mine is founded on the grounds of equality which is central to morality but absent from all religions claiming to be true. What's yours based on?

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alikeExcreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)

Clearly you didn't read the article I linked to, that pointed out the problems with much of this research, when you have articles primarily using the same sources, such as Hitchens works, that's a problem. When you have research that involves reading articles, as opposed to interviews with patients, those that knew her personally, worked with her, etc.. whatever portrait you paint of her likely to be inauthentic, driven by your own vitriol.

You can cite a variety of people, who have negative things to say about Theresa, but the substance of those arguments depends on the data it's based on. When you avoid interviewing actual patients, staff, those who personally knew her, you're not painting a faithful depiction of a person, but a deliberate caricature.

She recieved a lot of very generous donations. She used that money to travel. She didn't use that money to help the people to at least die with a bit more dignity. She refused to treat people who could have lived under the misguided notion that they're poor and society doesn't care about them (untouchable) -- therefore they're better off starving to death and not receiving treatment.

The Catholic Church in the United States (working closely with judges and county officials) would routinely take children from very poor families too and put them up for adoption during 1930s and 40s, even up until the 1950s.

But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

(15-03-2016 09:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote: You can't, you're entirely handicapped by your own moral beliefs from having that discussion, because at the end of the day whatever arguments you have as to what's moral or not amounts to nothing more than arguing that blue is a prettier color than red. You clearly won't be appealing to some objective standard, imagined or otherwise.

On the contrary, until you demonstrate proof of a god, you are basing your moral code on an imaginary friend. A being that has, according to scripture, ordered genocide, rape, murder, genital mutilation, slavery and eternal torture for trivial crimes.

If morals are objective, they apply to god as well as man. That is the definition of objective.

The only moral codes that matter are the ones that we make and that we enforce. It may suck, but it's all we've got.

kat lickers are brought up not to question their paedo-supporting church. That, however, does not apply to the rest of humanity. Do they really think that we didn't know what was going on with that foul ugly bitch?

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all

In the early 1990's Charles Keating was the Bernie Madoff of his day. He stole money from $252,000,000 from people who trusted their life savings to him. He donated $1.25 million dollars of that stolen money to Mother Teresa but when he was finally caught and tried in a courtroom the prosecutor tried to get M T to give it back. Here's the letter she wrote to the judge.

The Prosecutor sent a letter to Mother Teresa pleading for the stolen money to be returned to it's rightful owners. Here's his letter.

We should perhaps consider what these interpretations of her actions are being based on
.
We are talking about woman in her 80s, a few years away from her own death, when the Keating trial occurred. And all we have is a single letter written from her stating an ignorance of Keating's work and business deals, but acknowledging his contributions to the charity. And a lack of response to a second letter reportedly addressed to her from a judge. By the time of trial, her letter etc.. her health was already ailing, offering to resign her position at the charity as a result.

Her view on Keating, how the money donated to the charity should be handled, whether she read the subsequent letter, how she thought it should be handled following the conviction etc.. are entirely unknown to us, she likely would have deferred to the Church on that question,

So forgive me for giving the benefit of the doubts here to an 80 year old lady, with ailing health, who wasn't particularly the brightest, or most informed on issues above her own immediate concerns.

If you want to vilify her as some moral monster based on aspects like her association with Charles Keating, you can go on right ahead, but it just says more about you than her.

And if anyone here wants to present themselves as morally superior to her, they're just kidding themselves.

Quote:This women was a scourge on humanity.....Too bad there isn't a hell because this woman would easily qualify for entrance.

I guess it most feel good for a person to imagine themselves as morally superior to a old lady who took a vow of poverty, and devoted her life to the poor, but statements like the one above reveal more about you, than her. The psychology here perhaps not much different that sort of republicans that demonize Obama to the the point of caricature, desperate to use whatever shreds they can find to paint that picture.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

In the early 1990's Charles Keating was the Bernie Madoff of his day. He stole money from $252,000,000 from people who trusted their life savings to him. He donated $1.25 million dollars of that stolen money to Mother Teresa but when he was finally caught and tried in a courtroom the prosecutor tried to get M T to give it back. Here's the letter she wrote to the judge.

The Prosecutor sent a letter to Mother Teresa pleading for the stolen money to be returned to it's rightful owners. Here's his letter.

We should perhaps consider what these interpretations of her actions are being based on
.
We are talking about woman in her 80s, a few years away from her own death, when the Keating trial occurred. And all we have is a single letter written from her stating an ignorance of Keating's work and business deals, but acknowledging his contributions to the charity. And a lack of response to a second letter reportedly addressed to her from a judge. By the time of trial, her letter etc.. her health was already ailing, offering to resign her position at the charity as a result.

Her view on Keating, how the money donated to the charity should be handled, whether she read the subsequent letter, how she thought it should be handled following the conviction etc.. are entirely unknown to us, she likely would have deferred to the Church on that question,

So forgive me for giving the benefit of the doubts here to an 80 year old lady, with ailing health, who wasn't particularly the brightest, or most informed on issues above her own immediate concerns.

If you want to vilify her as some moral monster based on aspects like her association with Charles Keating, you can go on right ahead, but it just says more about you than her.

And if anyone here wants to present themselves as morally superior to her, they're just kidding themselves.

Quote:This women was a scourge on humanity.....Too bad there isn't a hell because this woman would easily qualify for entrance.

I guess it most feel good for a person to imagine themselves as morally superior to a old lady who took a vow of poverty, and devoted her life to the poor, but statements like the one above reveal more about you, than her. The psychology here perhaps not much different that sort of republicans that demonize Obama to the the point of caricature, desperate to use whatever shreds they can find to paint that picture.

Again.. using a label that can equally fit the opposite way for the scenario. It's not a "bad" only concept.

Mother Teresa is still being made as a caricature to be the godly sainthood deserving woman.

Even you're description of benefit of the doubt old 80 year old lady that's not so understanding of these issues at had is a caricature too. It's just a poor stereotype to make it seem alright.

Causing harm to thousands to maybe millions of people via actions (if out of ignorance) is negative. The ignorance doesn't make it okay, not as bad, or forgettable because she has been rewarded and praised for "ignorance" or just pushing a belief that caused frequent daily harm.

That's the fucking point of calling her praise and worship and sainthood absolute bullshit. Oh I forgot.. you have to view it as either praising her of vilifying. It's not just not either one of those to say she shouldn't be praised or sainted for work that was harmful and unsanitary assisted, it has to be black/white either one side or the other. I gotta recall to placate that point.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson

(15-03-2016 10:19 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote: On the contrary, until you demonstrate proof of a god, you are basing your moral code on an imaginary friend. A being that has, according to scripture, ordered genocide, rape, murder, genital mutilation, slavery and eternal torture for trivial crimes.

If morals are objective, they apply to god as well as man. That is the definition of objective.

The only moral codes that matter are the ones that we make and that we enforce. It may suck, but it's all we've got.

You claim your god creates morality?

In the same breath, until you can demonstrate there's some objective standard being appealed to here to frame God's actions or anyone else's immoral, all discussions about what's moral or not, are moot.

Whatever accusations of whats immoral or not, based on your own presuppositional beliefs about morality, are entirely worthless.

Quote:What about the Jehovah Witnesses?
The Muslims?
The Mormons?
The Jews?

They all say god has different morals than you claim.

Until one of you proves it, your claims are worse than meaningless.

Clearly you're neither a muslim, mormon, or a jew, so it's perhaps best that you don't speak for them. If us religious folks all believe that morality is objective, at least we're able to discuss what it means to be Good, to be moral, etc..., of our obligations and duties. You on the other hand are effectively removed from the conversation, because you don't believe in this one fundamental aspect here, that for others is self-evident.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."